Article in NYT on Walmart and Blogging
7th March 2006 by Natasha Spring
Take a look at the article in today’s New York Times about Walmart and blogging. The fact that this retail giant is taking steps to integrate bloggers into its PR campaign creates some interesting implications on a new type of reputation management. Your thoughts?
New York Times
TECHNOLOGY | March 7, 2006
Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign
By MICHAEL BARBARO
Wal-Mart is looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers. But the strategy raises concerns about what bloggers should disclose to readers.
March 7th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
I like that Wal-Mart wants to get involved. I like that they picked a P.R. firm who values the power of blogs.
The end result is messy. Edelman may not have chosen their bloggers wisely.
It seemed the blogs chosen are ad heavy blogs, in need of traffic, money, and an ego-massage.
In working with companies who are reaching out to bloggers, I first suggest launching a blog.
If a blog isn’t part of the plan, develop a relationship without expectation or promise of reciprocity. Make that clear upfront.
Was this relationship building or relationship manipulation?
March 7th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Mike,
Your last question lies at the heart of this issue. The article implies manipulation, but it begs the question of where the line is drawn. Also, it’s interesting to see a sort of organic screening process taking place with planted text and bloggers being discovered. Or maybe not. Is there a proliferation of companies out there planting text and bloggers to make themselves look pretty? With such a vast and anonymous forum, is there any way of knowing what is real?
Natasha
March 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Want to know what I think?
You’ll have to get up real early on Wednesday to find out. I’ll be a guest on CNBC’s Squawkbox on this very issue — at 3:25 a.m. here on the West Coast, 6:25 a.m. Eastern.
March 7th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Natasha - Your final question is better than mine. “Blink” would be my answer. The reader will have to go with their gut.
As we “pitch” bloggers, keep in mind that even offline - there needs to be importance placed on who is recruited to evangelize.
We have no control over the organic enthusiast, but if we reach out to recruit, the blogger should have a level of credibility -not simply activity.
I’m most curious as to how long it took to search and decide on which bloggers to approach.
Having first-hand knowledge of one of the bloggers mentioned, I’m not surprised he was a target. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Shel - I look forward to it. I do want to know what you think. Speak fast though. You have a plane to catch and I have a meeting at 6:00 Central
March 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I’ll TiVo the segment, Mike, and see if I can make it available on my blog. I’m sure Neville Hobson and I will discuss the situation– and my CNBC appearance — on Thursday’s installment of our podcast, “For Immediate Release.” And I’ll probably blog it, too. So there’s no chance you’ll miss out on my opinion!
March 9th, 2006 at 3:13 am
Let’s pause for a moment and consider companies or organizations we admire - while different companies come to my mind, I know that tastes differ, so you may think of other organizations. Generally it would be a company in the glow of business health, providing competitive rewards to its employees so that they and their families can take part in a rising quality of life as well as personal and professional growth opportunities, standing for an inspiring mission that comprises a social context and larger aspirational vision, and, finally, embracing values and behaviors we admire. And all of these attributes are framed against the larger picture of society’s norms, values, and economic health. When the attributes don’t fit in with the larger framework, an organization will look to manipulate perception - not shine the spotlight to allow the natural glow of the organization to evidence itself, but use available tools to create propaganda. Okay, today the delivery tool is blogs - but the substance is propaganda. History has proven time and time again that propaganda is powerful - even successful - but ultimately flawed and pernicious. As a society, we cannot support entities that choose to practice propaganda. As ethical business communicators, we should continue to speak out for ethical practices and greater transparency with ever louder voices.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Judy, the blogger relations campaign undertaken by Edelman on Wal-Mart’s behalf met Richard Edelman’s four requirements: (1) transparency about who’s sending the messages, whom they work for, and the goal of the PR campaign (2) getting permission from the bloggers to send the email messages (3) disclosure of financial arrangements (in this case there was none; in fact, there were no requirements of any kind) and (4) delivery of 100% accurate, factual information without spin. Bloggers get information from a variety of resources. I just don’t see how it’s “manipulation” to add an additional source of such information. (While I wondered why the company didn’t start it’s own blog, Neville Hobson pointed out that it would be hard to build a following for a blog that’s launched in the midst of a crisis.) Keep in mind that the anti-Wal-Mart forces are undoubtedly feeding content to anti-Wal-Mart bloggers. But as long as the material was accurate and designed to provide fodder for the bloggers — bloggers who were inclined to support this point of view and were obtaining similar material from other sources — I just don’t see it as propoganda.
What’s more, as long as bloggers are going to consider themselves (maybe I should say “ourselves”) as reporters on issues, we should expect to be approached by those with a message to get out, just as the media gets press releases, VNRs, and direct contact from organizations with tips and pointers.
The fact that a couple of the bloggers who agreed to receive the material wound up reproducing it verbatim — contrary to Edelman’s request to simply use it at will as a launching point for blog postings — should lead to finger-pointing at the bloggers, not the client.
Finally, it’s also worth noting that anything the bloggers posted is subject to comments from readers and rebuttal posts from other bloggers. Anything posted to a blog is merely a launching point for conversation.
So I have trouble seeing the effort as propaganda rather than an effort to add to the mix of viewpoints and stimulate conversation.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Not all bloggers are journalists. Some are; some are not. So fact checking, full disclosure…these elements may or may not be relied on. The result, as you point out, can mean a muddy message. But it strikes me that providing a script is, well, providing a script.
Nevertheless, it was a very thoughtful plan, designed to reach a target audience. And granted, we’re all figuring this pr/blogging thing out. So kudos to Edelman for such a comprehensive and well-designed new media plan. Don’t you think, however, that because of the organization and objectives it’s in a different league from a blogger who simply complains about Wal-Mart? Or have you heard of anti-Wal-Mart bloggers hiring a public relations firm to campaign against Wal-Mart?
By the way, Wal-Mart is Edelman’s boss in this situation. Edelman may be the PR expert, but it’s up to Wal-Mart to set high standards and provide leadership. I saw neither.
jj